Liberal Education at Liberty University
Posted in Education by Ken Thomas
Creationism misses both the beauty and the truth of the account of creation in Genesis. (See Leon Kass.) But
this account of a field trip by Liberty University students to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum illustrates how rigorous attention to science and biblical faith can complement each other. Such students would appear to have a far better understanding of science (not to mention respect for faith) than those in higher education generally. Concluding the field trip at the Jefferson Memorial--Jefferson, that notorious religious skeptic--is the crowning touch.
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Ignorance still on parade. Even the Pope thinks young-earth creationism is nuts. The anti-science stupidity on display here is what lost you the election.
Sigh, so many illusions. Evolution is more beautiful than creation? Yeah, I'll not be looking into that much; even assuming it is true, such a statement has no relevance for how the earth actually was created. God would be under no constraint to create it in the most beautiful manner.
Huh, who said evolution was more beautiful than creation? "Creationism" is not biblical orthodoxy--that was my point.
Nice job Ken. And agreed. As Jaffa wrote (and said): "neither naked evolution nor naked fundamentalism is [a] sufficient ground for instructing the young."
I think that the question of origins is uninteresting; what is more interesting is man's ability to think now and grasp abstract realities as well as the thinking soul.
I suppose it could be inferred from the statement, "Creationism misses both the beauty and the truth of the account of creation in Genesis."
You should have merely stated that "Creationism is not a true account of Genesis." You brought up beauty.
Stating that creationism is not biblical orthodoxy is quite unclear. Do you mean that creationism is clearly false? If so then i disagree. Do you mean that the answer is uncertain and that creationism is one of several plausible methods? Then fine.
Your claim that creationism is less beautiful and true than the Genesis account implies that you think the former. Otherwise it would be one theory among equals.